Labor has lashed the Coalition’s new immigration push, arguing it would fundamentally change the character of the country—an accusation the government is now being asked to answer in plain terms.
Home affairs minister Tony Burke called the policy “hardline” and said it was being rolled out to chase voters drifting toward Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. He accused the Coalition of chasing a kind of electoral message rather than a concrete plan, and insisted it risks turning a blind eye to “a reality of immigration and integration”. In Burke’s view, the proposal will alienate voters in multicultural communities, including electorates with large numbers of Chinese Australian voters. Somewhere in the middle of these exchanges, the tone kept circling back to the same question: what does the government want to be able to remove, and on what basis?
Burke also took aim at Angus Taylor’s explanation of the proposal, unveiled on Tuesday. He said the first announcement in a promised series was essentially about “what sort of country we are”. Burke noted Taylor had been asked more than once for an “example of the person who we can’t currently cancel or refuse a visa to”, and said the answer never came. “Mr Taylor has been asked a couple of times to provide this exact example and hasn’t, simply because what they are wanting is a discussion and a meme,” Burke said. “There is no policy attached to what they’ve announced.”
That criticism landed alongside a more direct challenge from cricket great Usman Khawaja, who described the policy as “appalling” on social media. Khawaja urged Taylor to stop circling the issue and say if the approach would discriminate against Muslims. “Don’t beat around the bush by using words such as ‘extremist, ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘dictators’,” he wrote, adding that most of the world shares values similar to Australia’s—respecting everyone and not breaking the law. He argued people shouldn’t be judged based on their governments or government representatives, because otherwise you wouldn’t be allowed anywhere.
The Coalition’s approach, according to its outline, would embed the existing Australian values statement into the Migration Act. The aim is to create power for the government to cancel visas and deport people who do not subscribe to the goals set out in that statement. Those goals include respect for freedom and the dignity of individuals, freedom of religion, a commitment to the rule of law, equality, and a “fair go” for all. A new
“safe country list” would also be introduced to fast-track refusals for asylum claims from countries deemed safe to return to; Misryoum reporting noted it would be based on a similar list used by UK authorities and administered by the Home Affairs Department. In practice, Taylor said the values statement at the moment is not enforceable and “can’t be used on its own as the basis for cancellation or refusal”—though he framed the change as making
it enforceable once placed in legislation.
Taylor, speaking during a campaign stop in Queensland, cited the Bondi beach terror attack in December as part of the rationale. He argued that migrants who do not believe in Australia’s parliamentary democracy or the rule of law should be removed, and he also pointed to sharia law and individuals holding extremist views. “We’re proposing to change that by putting it into the legislation and making it enforceable and making it a basis for cancellation
and refusal,” Taylor said. The plan goes further: it would require permanent residents to learn English, extend wait times for noncitizens to access social security support, and create enhanced screening coordination within Home Affairs, with closer integration of intelligence and enforcement capabilities from Asio, the federal police and border force. Anne Aly, the minister for multicultural affairs, told ABC TV the Coalition was departing from the principles of Australia’s non-discriminatory immigration system, though she agreed
some English competency was appropriate and said most migrants want to learn and speak English. Taylor’s closing line, as presented in Misryoum reporting, was that the plan would protect Australians’ way of life and restore integrity to the migration system—whether voters accept that framing may depend on how clearly the policy explains who can be removed, and how, and under what definition of “Australian values”.
US claims blockade halts Iran sea trade as Trump eyes talks
N.Y. cafes host “sip and listen” Holocaust survivor talks
U.S. warships turned back six ships in 24 hours of Iran blockade